Plenty of ignorant talking heads and has been celebrities asking why anyone would use an "assault weapon" for hunting.

Well, because it's safer? More accurate?

Go thru the list of lies spouted off in the news, every one is actually wrong. We seem to miss that. It's more than simply chuckling over "that shoulder stock thingy."

The first hated object, the standard 20/30 round magazine, isn't really used in most states to hunt - at full capacity. Most hunters live in a restricted state already - 5 to 10 rounds maximum in the gun during the season. So, like a shotgun, it gets blocked, or a special one purchased - a low capacity magazine.

Yes, the wording is specific, and we need to quit using their's. 30 rounds are not HIGH capacity - it's standard gov't issue. Quit feeding their lies. Don't buy HIGH capacity mags, buy standard GI.

Second, it's detachable, where the next hated feature lies. You can remove the mag, pull the charging handle, the AR is unloaded. Most "hunting" rifles with less capacity require you to manually cycle the rounds thru the chamber and eject them. That means there is a risk of accidental discharge unloading the gun every time you close the bolt. That is a fact, it happens all the time. With the AR, it is much less likely, by a 1 to 5, 6,or 7 ratio. Safer.

If the common sense hunter unloads his rifle climbing obstacles in the field, then the common sense answer is REQUIRE a magazine to improve hunter safety.

Self loading is another hated feature, a type sold since the 1885 Mannlicher. The advantage is that the hunter doesn't have to lose his sight picture or remove his finger from the trigger, he's ready for the next shot in split second. When hunting in the field, the ethical hunter knows he stands a risk of a poorly placed shot which will require a follow up. It's not a question of skill as often as the environment and the game - they don't pose for the shot, and in woodland, you don't get a clear one across hundreds of yards of their travel. A second shot is more likely to bring down the game, end the chase, reduce loss, and eliminate long term suffering of a wounded animal.

Therefore, the AR is a more ethical and humane gun. Add to that, it's usually in a caliber that matches the game and terrain, and that means less recoil. The hunter and rifle are inherently more accurate, and there is even less propensity to flinch, misdirecting the shot.

Some argue the point, but the evidence is in National Match Service Rifle shooting. The AR, with less recoil, is more accurate in the rapid fire stage than the older large caliber guns. Part of that accuracy is simply less drama when shooting. The AR holds most of the top ten places in matches, and has for decades now.

And last - the AR has been the biggest selling firearm to civilians for years now. Hunting is the reason most guns are sold, and AR's are better at it, lighter weight, and work. It IS American's hunting rifle now, and the magazines, websites, and development of alternate calibers dedicated to hunting point that out. You might prefer one newer caliber over another, but make no mistake, buried in the threads of which is best is the point - which is better for HUNTING.

If you hear "nobody can hunt with an assault rifle" feel free to inform them it's actually more accurate, more ethical, and safer. The facts are pretty clear, and trying to defend other choices is usually an attempt to protect social standing or a political ploy. The gun itself is the natural heir of mechanical improvement over hundreds of years of design and use, and has been the issue rifle for the Armed Forces over 45 years - in the hands of rank beginners with just a few weeks of training.

__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor

223 is just barely enough for a deer. And if i had the choice between an AR and a good bolt action in a good deer caliber, I'd pick the bolt. And bolt guns can be unloaded without shucking every shell out one by one. And they are generally more accurate. And while I haven't hunted everything, I have learned that shooting at a running animal because you flubbed the first shot doesn't usually work, especially with a rifle.

My Stag AR lower has multiple uppers to answer that question. I can swap on the .22LR upper for plinking, or swap on another caliber for hunting up to .50 Beowulf. The fit and feel of the rifle is almost the same until the shot breaks and you just have to have the appropriate sight set up on each upper. The alternative is 4 or 5 separate rifles. Need a bigger safe for those.

So that's one line of reasoning. Everyone looks at it differently. No one right answer.

If you know what you are doing I am sure the AR would do just fine. One of the best hunters I knew could take down a deer with anything. For a while he was using a 22 mag. The guy was a meat hunter and took more deer than anyone I ever heard of. I am not that good a shot and prefer a heavier round to help do the work for me. Just saying, it depends.

Stoner actually developed the AR prototype for hunting. It was only after the developement was far along did the idea of making it a military rifle struck home. His first militay contract was the AR-10 (7.62 NATO) sold to Spain.
It was many years later that the USAF bought the M-16.
So, yes, I think the AR is a great hunting rifle.

Whether an AR is a better hunting rifle than a bolt action, a more traditional semi-automatic, a pump, a lever action, a double, or a single shot is strictly a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of fact.

"Second, it's detachable, where the next hated feature lies." (Referring to the magazine.)

The capacity of the magazine is obviously an issue to anti-gun people, but the fact that it is detachable has not been a hot topic IMHO in the mainstream media.

"Most "hunting" rifles with less capacity require you to manually cycle the rounds thru the chamber and eject them. That means there is a risk of accidental discharge unloading the gun every time you close the bolt. That is a fact, it happens all the time."

False!!! Most hunting rifles have a magazine that can be unloaded without cycling the rounds through the chamber. Many rifles have detachable magazines. Many have hinged floor plate magazines. Some have a tubular magazine. Doubles and single shot don't require cycling the action, the cartridges are already in the chamber. Finally, there are bolt action rifles with "blind" magazines, i.e., they can only be unloaded from the top. Cycling the action will unload the magazine and some (maybe most or all) can be unloaded by hand from the top without cycling the action.

"Self loading is another hated feature"

Obviously the first cartridge isn't self loading. All semi-automatic firearms self-load the next cartridge after firing the chanbered cartridge. This may be an issue for the most adamant gun haters.

"Therefore, the AR is a more ethical and humane gun." (Based on the fact that a second shot is immediately available.)

Second shot availability distingsuishes the AR only from the single shot rifle.

"Add to that, it's usually in a caliber that matches the game and terrain, and that means less recoil."

What other hunting rifles are not available in a caliber (and cartridge) which matches the game and terrain? What other hunting rifles are not available in more cartidges that the AR? How does a cartridge which matches the game and terrain mean less recoil? Obviously a .30-06 recoils more than a .308 which recoils more than .223/5.56.

"And last - the AR has been the biggest selling firearm to civilians for years now. Hunting is the reason most guns are sold, and AR's are better at it, lighter weight, and work."

Do you have any evidence most ARs are purchased for hunting? Do you have any evidence ARs are better for hunting elk, mule deer pronghorns, sheep, mountain goats, black bear, brown bear, Kodiak bear, moose, mountain lion, African game, New Zealand game?

"[I]t's actually more accurate, more ethical, and safer [than other hunting rifles]. The facts are pretty clear, and trying to defend other choices is usually an attempt to protect social standing or a political ploy. "

I would like to know which of my statement you believe constitute my "attempt to protect social standing or a political ploy."

By the way, I carried the M-16 44 years ago in Vietnam. I think the AR design is terrific, the variations are awesome and the quality of the rifles being made today ranges from just below average to nearly perfect. I do not currently own an AR and must wait for the market to return to normal before I get one (or two). I would like to use an AR for coyote hunting, but I will stick with my bolt action rifles with handloads for hunting big game in North America: elk, bear, whitetail deer, mule deer, and pronghorns.

I simply say, "hunting isn't even an issue concerning the AR 15 platform." As a matter of fact, a .50 cal. rifle is a pretty darned sorry hunting weapon fo various reasons as well. There are literally millions of avid shooters that will never walk the woods and fields to hunt game--always have been. I'm a hunter, but that's OK with me. There's absolutely nothing wrong with killing paper--even if you do it 30 or 100 rounds at a time.

I just purchased an AR 10 in .243 Winchester. Just won it on auction today so no experience shooting it yet. Very limited AR 10 .243 manufacturers - Armalite and DPMS, I bought an Armalite. I have a couple of bolt action .243s and all of the reloading equipment and components so it seemed to make sense to get that caliber. I have an AR 15 in .223 but wanted a black rifle with more stopping power (105 GR bullets at nearly 3,000 FPS). I heard better reviews on the Armalite although they and DPMS are back ordered until who knows when. I have been looking for a while and found this one and only one on gunbroker.com yesterday and won the auction. I think it's going to be a lot of fun to shoot! I'll let you know how it goes.

I refuse to even acknowledge any argument that starts off: "Well, I don't think hunting rifles should be banned...." I could care less if you can or cannot hunt with a particular rifle. An AC556 set on tri-burst would make a fine hunting rifle (legalities aside).

No one should have to justify whether a particular gun or rifle can be used for hunting. In fact, hunting and "sporting purpose" have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. This is garbage that the antis made up. The bottom line is I try never to fall into the "anti-trap", where they make statements premised with unsupported factual conclusions and then expect you to respond. That's exactly what they do when they mention "hunting" or "sporting purpose".

Unless your hunting varmits, you can't hunt with a 20-30 round mag. They do make 5 round mags for hunting. Both AK(7.62x39) and AR(.223 Rem) type rifles are just fine for hunting provided you don't try any really long shots. Neither has much power at over 100 yards.
I got curiuos about the largest game taken with an AR-15: Polar bear!
The bear was rampaging in a small town. The shooter only had his AR-15 with him. He killed the bear but emptied the full 20 round clip. Not a reccomend practice unless you want to live fast and die young.

With bullets designed for deer hunting 223 is more than enough for any deer on the planet. Most of the failures are when folks try to deer hunt with varmit bullets. Shoot varmit bullets through a 30-06 at deer and you will see failures as well.

For the record, I rarely hunt with my AR, but it has nothing to do with any concerns about the 223's abilities to take deer. Most of the areas where I hunt have good populations of bear which are legal as well. A 223 is a fine deer caliber with good bullets. It ain't a bear gun.

Quote:

Unless your hunting varmits, you can't hunt with a 20-30 round mag.

That depends on where you hunt. There are no restrictions on ammo capacity in many places. Just personal preference, but I actually prefer 20 round mags to 30's because they don't get in the way. When hunting with my AR I use 20's and only load 8-10. But there is no law here, or in many places.

I don't know if an AR is a better choice than a good bolt rifle, but it is certainly a viable choice if someone wants to use it so. But as others have said, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. But the more hunters using AR's the harder it is for anti's to argue that point. This is exactly why we are in a better position now than in 1994.

Citizens who own and shoot military style weapons do better in wars than citizens that get a few weeks of rifle training in basic training and then go off to a battlefield. That is the reason we have the CMP. Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd ammendment, its about freedom, readiness, and threats from both foreign and domestic sources. Citizen's that can shoot protect us all.

Alternate views don't make the other person wrong, if things were agreed on, we wouldn't be talking AWB again.

The detachable magazine is very much a part of the California AWB, and specifically called out in new legislation to be outlawed completely, not even a bullet button.

As for some of the rest of nitpicking, it misses the point, and I gave some clear examples. What we have actually documented is a lot of denial in how the gun works and where it rates it the scheme of evolutionary development in firearms. I don't see new rifle designs stepping back from what the AR15 pioneered, if anything, modern rifles - those adopted by armies in huge quantities - are taking the AR15 featureset as the bare minimum and adding to that.

What modern armies adopt are what future sporting arms will be - that is another fact.

I'm not trying to address the issue of the 2A being about hunting rifles, but to ignore the progression of firearms and ban modern features is really no different than the attempt to ban previous innovations because the public simply wasn't prepared to accept them. Like automobiles - you no longer have to walk in front of them waving a red flag, or keep a lantern lit next them at night on the street so a horse and buggy doesn't run into them.

Frankly, less than wholehearted acceptance of the AR15 as the modern hunting rifle is just playing into the hands of the antigunners - we know they are the enemy, but it continues to surprise me how many fifth columnists pop up to undermine our efforts.

Moot point, the proposed legislation in Congress could be interpreted as banning the Garand, too - it loads 8 rounds. The anti's won't be happy until YOUR guns are banned, too. If they win now, you are next.

"First they came for the AR 15 shooters,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't one.

Then they came for the handgunners,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't one.

Then they came for the shotgunners,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't one.

Then they came for me,
and I told them I supported their goals all along.
But I was an idealist, and they didn't want to take any chances. "

If not having guns at all isn't seen as the goal, ask our brothers in Britain.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.